Moral criticism of ideas is legitimate, but must be kept apart from intellectual criticism. Whether something is true and/or logically coherent is a different question from whether it's a good idea to adopt and spread it. Erasing the distinction is dishonest and corrupt. 2/5
-
Show this thread
-
A critical word in the original question is "intellectual". I give "no" as an answer not because I don't think moral criticism is legitimate but because I don't think intellectual criticism for non-intellectual reasons is legitimate. 3/5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Consistency is key. You should evaluate all ideas against the same intellectual standard, but you can also evaluate them against the same *moral* standard and have some come up short. That's consistent. If you're *upfront about it* it's also honest and moral. 4/5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Given this, I'm not sure how to interpret the poll, or what I should answer myself. What I do feel sure about is that intellectual and moral criticism should be explicitly and completely separated to avoid contamination and corruption of discourse. Too bad that won't happen. 5/5
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @everytstudies
I might have misunderstood this question! I answered something like "should ideas with potentially harmful consequences be vetted extra carefully", which seemed clearly true, and the "political" aspect a sub-case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @frostinmay
It does sound clearly true when stated like that, but it also seems clearly true to me that we're always obligated to believe what is most likely to be true, and desirability has no legitimate place at that table. I'm struggling with how to solve this.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @everytstudies @frostinmay
I don’t think we’re obligated to believe anything. When reasons are conflicting and no action is required, it is better to have no opinion. I think it is especially better to have no opinion (factual or ethical) in morally consequential or difficult cases.
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @frostinmay
Quibbles about the word obligated aside, I do think that when we assign levels of credence to propositions, we're obligated to do it without reference to desirability. "Believe" in this case doesn't refer to selecting only one idea to back 100%
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @everytstudies @frostinmay
I agree… and I don’t think we have any obligation to assign levels of credence either. (In situations where one does have to, I agree that the fact/value distinction is important.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @frostinmay
Agreed. We've gotten quite far from the original point though, which was that if you want to reject an idea for moral reasons, you have to be honest about that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, sorry to nitpick!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.